His
lead lawyer is former Virginia attorney general Ken Cuccinelli. He's
acting as a private individual, not a US senator. More on this below.

Paul
is a right-wing Republican. He's a Tea Party favorite. He's
anti-populist and corporatist.

He
prioritizes national defense. He does it at a time America's only
enemies are ones it invents. At the same time, he's against
preemptive wars.

Last
summer he said:

"I
believe individuals and countries can and should defend themselves,
but I simply canít imagine Jesus at the head of any army of
soldiers, and I think as Christians we need to be wary of the
doctrine of preemptive war."

"We
must and should stand with our fellow Christians in the Middle East
and around the world, but that does not necessarily mean war and it
certainly does not mean arming sides in every conflict."

At
the same time, he said:

"If
we were to cut somewhere else in the budget, I would try to restore
some money to the military."

He
opposes drone warfare against Americans. Last March, he filibustered
for 13 hours. He did so against nominating John Brennan as CIA
director.

"Does
the president have the authority to use a weaponized drone to kill an
American not engaged in combat on American soil," he asked? "The
answer to that is no," he said.

Paul
voted against the FY 2013 and 2014 National Defense Authorization
Acts. He did so because of provisions permitting Obama to order US
citizens arrested and indefinitely detained on his say alone for any
reason or none at all.

Ralph
Nader says differences between him and his father "are ones of
personality, policy and opportunism."

He's
a 2016 presidential aspirant. His politics run counter to mainstream
America. He "declines to challenge the (corporate managed trade)
autocratic systems of transnational governance," said Nader.

On
the one hand, he stresses constitutional preamble "we the
people" language. On the other, he supports bloated military
budgets, corporatism, cutting vital social benefits, and other
anti-populist policies.

According
to Nader:

"Corporatism,
Empire, militarism, the big Wall Street Banks, crony capitalism and
the unlawful, repressive national security bureaucracy" define
the measure of the man.

Paul
supporters and others have cause for concern. Would he send his own
children to fight US imperial wars? Indeed so, saying:

"If
the military action is justified and there is no other recourse, I
will cast my vote with a heavy heart."

Arguably
America had no just cause ever throughout its history. Its war of
independence repackaged Crown rule under new management. Everything
changed but stayed the same.

Wilson
pledged to keep America out of WW I. Straightaway he went all-out for
involvement. Roosevelt manipulated Japan to attack.

Doing
so gave him the war he wanted. He had to convince Congress and a
pacifist public. Pearl Harbor worked as planned.

So
do false flags. They're longstanding US practice. They began in the
19th century. They repeated through 9/11. Every post-WW II war
America waged was lawless. So do current direct and proxy ones.

Nuremberg
Charter and Principles call them supreme crimes against peace. Paul
has much to answer for.

Supporting
lawlessness means complicity with high crimes. At the same time, he
believes wars require Congress declaring them.

Shamefully
he ignores UN Charter provisions. The Security Council alone has
final say on whether one country may attack another. It's permitted
only in self-defense.

Paul
endorses wars on "radical Islam." It's not "go(ing)
quietly into that good night," he claims. He includes Iran as a
prime target.

Doing
so ignores Tehran's longstanding peace agenda. It hasn't attacked
another country in centuries. It threatens none now.

He
uses incendiary rhetoric like "our enemies." It bears
repeating. America's only ones it invents. Not according to Paul,
saying:

"Until
we understand the world around us, until we understand at least a
modicum of what animates our enemies, we cannot defend ourselves and
we cannot contain our enemies."

He
calls "Iran developing nuclear weapons...the most pressing
(issue) of the day." No matter that its nuclear program is
peaceful. No evidence whatever suggests otherwise.

"I
have voted for Iranian sanctions in the hope of preventing war and
allowing for diplomacy," he said. "War should never be our
only option," he added.

"This
decision represents an important first step in having the
constitutionality of government surveillance programs decided in the
regular court system rather than a secret court where only one side
is presented."

"In
June, I introduced the Fourth Amendment Restoration Act which, if
enacted, would have restored our Constitutional rights and declared
that the Fourth Amendment shall not be construed to allow any agency
of the United States government to search the phone records of
Americans without a warrant based on probable cause."

"The
NSA phone surveillance program is a blatant abuse of power and an
invasion of our privacy."

"This
ruling reminds the Federal government that it is not above the law. I
will continue to fight against the violations of American's
Constitutional rights through illegal phone surveillance until it is
stopped once and for all."

RANDPAC
is
Paul's political action committee. "Stand With Rand," it
headlines. "Join the Class Action Lawsuit."

"Wanted:
Ten Million Americans to Sue to Take Back Our Rights."

"I'm
outraged," said Paul, "and I'm going to do everything I can
to END this madness."

"That's
why I've asked Internet providers and phone companies to join me in a
class-action lawsuit to STOP Barack Obama's NSA from snooping on the
American people."

According
to an unnamed senior Paul staffer:

Since
he floated his class-action lawsuit last June, hundreds of thousands
of people volunteered online as possible plaintiffs.

The
ACLU, Electronic Frontier Foundation, as well as conservative
activist Larry Klayman and Charles Strange filed other suits earlier.